Playing The Expectations Game with the Wesleyan Covenant Association

Convenient Ambiguity

I’ve been in awe the past few weeks at how effectively the newest collective in The United Methodist Church has both neutralized critiques and encouraged speculation. It’s been done quite well and is instructive for folks in the future.

Let’s examine the timeline and the result.

First, the timeline: the outcry to the Bishops naming the Wesleyan Covenant Association as “fanning fears of schism” continued for weeks after their letter. Most recently, Dr. David Watson protested and Dr. Bill Arnold claimed that schism was not their goal or expectation. Repeated blog posts and press releases hammered the bishops and anyone who criticized the WCA because “we just don’t know what it is about yet” and “they haven’t done anything schismatic yet.”

All the while, however, that argument is not applied to the attendees who are coming with their own expectations for WCA’s plans of dissolution or for the WCA to become an open advocacy group:

The Rev. Bob Kaylor has a very insightful piece (to this outsider) about the WCA and hopes for a specific plan of dissolution or internal rebellion to the mother church gone astray.

The Rev. Shane Bishop says that he can no longer hold to the middle and is “jumping right” and joining the WCA. Though he hopes for unity, he also hopes for the WCA to be a conduit for what “right-leaning middle” Methodist believe.

The WCA hasn’t opposed these characterizations as “we don’t know what it is about yet,” nor do I expect them to. As we see clearly now, ambiguity of purpose is a convenient weapon against one’s opponents and a helpful lure to one’s affiliates.

A+ for the Expectations Game

Second, the result of the high-volume outcry against any criticism of the WCA is that their expectations for their first meeting in Chicago on October 7th are very easy to meet.

For the 24 hours of the event, the WCA can present themselves assimply a revival with the best and most diverse preachers and speakers they can find, which is a relief to people who feel they are in the minority of their worlds (but in the majority of the UMC). So long as they keep on message and refrain from any statements about schism or human sexuality, then they will have “proven” all the bloggers wrong and “that’s not what it is about.” Then folks can easily pay the minimum membership fees to be part of this movement.

I gotta hand it to them: it’s very savvy. Both the bishops and this blogger played right into their hands on this Expectation Game. By speaking the truth, we actually set very low bars for the event itself to jump over (“aw shucks, that’s not what we are about”), which is easy to do within the controlled experience of an event which will not be livestreamed for public scrutiny.

Should moderates attend to “rock the vote”?

But now to the key question: I’ve heard from some moderates and gay-affirming evangelicals that they are considering attending so that they could help “influence the policy votes” and encourage a different revival not built on the backs of exclusion of LGBTQ people.

This question has precedent as the WCA has already changed one of their founding statements. Their section on the Bible used to be high on inerrancy, but after an early August meeting, it was revised (I don’t have a copy of the original, so I can’t show side-by-side, sorry).Thus, there’s precedent for advocating for changes because apparently the WCA will change their statements on the Bible after only a few month’s discernment.

So since we know that democratic church systems are susceptible to internal manipulation (look at what the IRD has done to the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and our own Methodist church for decades), is it possible to turn the tables and have moderates and gay-affirming evangelicals rock the organizational vote? Or is it more plausible that these scenarios have already been anticipated by the WCA conveners?

WCA Conveners’ documented opposition to LGBTQ Inclusion

The reality is that it is highly unlikely that anything coming from the Conveners will resemble anything remotely inclusive of LGBTQ people. We know this by their public affirmations to the contrary. Of the 55 conveners of the Wesleyan Covenant Association:

58% signed the 2014 Integrity and Unity statement which called for continued trials and defrocking of out LGBTQ clergy and pastors who marry same-gender parishioners.

45% signed the 2016 Methodist Crossroads letter calling for the resignation of Bishop Karen Oliveto (many of the comments seek her immediate defrocking—an unusual request given that it would disregard due process literally spelled out in the Discipline) and the creation of a plan of separation if efforts seeking LGBTQ inclusion continue in the Church.

2 in 3, a whopping 65% signed the 2011 FaithfulUMC petition (see HX coverage here) which criticized Bishop Talbert marrying two men and named the paying of apportionments as a “contributing to the general ministries of a church that seems bent on its own destruction.”

In lesser numbers, 13% signed the Covenantal Unity Plan (see HX coverage here) for General Conference 2016 which sought to establish minimum penalties for clergy accused of LGBTQ inclusive actions and allowance for churches to leave the denomination without paying for their building and property. Finally, one person signed the 2009 Manhattan Declaration as well, which strongly opposes LGBTQ equal participation in the life of the Church … so not statistically significant.

In total, 91% of the conveners of the Wesleyan Covenant Association have signed at least one other online petition calling for the continued exclusion of LGBTQ persons from full participation in the United Methodist Church. You can see the data here (any mistakes are human errors, not willful ones, so let me know).

As we see by the conveners’ own public affirmations, any movement to relax the statement on LGBTQ exclusion, or strengthen any opposition to schism and connectional property ownership, is highly unlikely to be given the time of day. If that’s your aim, don’t waste your time attending.

So, Jeremy, are you going?

I’ve been invited by participants—yes, honest invitations, not snarky ones—to attend the October 7 meeting in Chicago.

I will not be in attendance. Not only is the day before a regional evangelism and discipleship meeting that is critical for my ministry context, the 7th is my daughter’s fourth birthday and family gathering. But even without that schedule conflict, since I cannot affirm the “Statement of Moral Principles on Marriage and Sexuality” due to its exclusion of LGBTQ people, then I am not eligible for membership in the WCA, and I don’t feel a need to attend.

As indicated above, I don’t expect much to happen anyway to satisfy the very low threshold for success mentioned above–their purpose isgathering names, not divisive commentary, after all. After the event, once we’ve done away with their weapon of ambiguity, the “iron sharpening iron” online debate can begin.

Crossing the October Threshold

After the event, a critical threshold will certainly be crossed: the event will have collected the names it needs so that the leadership can issue statements opposing LGBTQ inclusion and the Bishop’s Commission “on behalf of X thousand Methodists.”

That’s the critical difference between WCA membership and mailing list constituencies of Good News/Confessing/IRD: the leaders can speak on behalf of its membership, without having to do pesky individual petitions for consent and without the individual names published. So both the elements of accountability that this blog post referenced will disappear, replacing names with numbers. We’ll have turned a corner when it comes to this type of advocacy.

While I wonder what lies beyond for the people called Methodists, I know it won’t be good news for folks who seek a church that welcomes all to full participation in the life of the Church. In this way, the WCA Movement continues the same conflict in the UMC Institution. They become mirrors of each other, instead of windows envisioning something greater for us all.

Comments

Jeremy I appreciate this blog posting. I am one of the one one’s who sincerely invited you, and who also understands your inability to attend. Let me say, that as one registered to attend this event on Oct. 7, I am not a ‘member’ of this group. I don’t know if anyone yet has paid the described membership fees or not. While I agree theologically to the statement that have been put out by the WCA, I still have questions about direction, membership fee structures that remain unanswered for now, and of which I have a healthy amount of question and skepticism. I know some others who would be theologically aligned with the WCA have expressed similar questions. This group is a new group, and as you stated will probably make changes along the road of formation (see the BIble position revision).
I don’t think that there is any intent to keep what happens secret or beyond public viewing though. The event seems open enough, and the fee to attend seems just about right to pay for the even itself, not to act as some major source of income.
I think there are many questions that are not answered yet, and of which only time can tell. This includes not just the WCA, but recent events in the COB and their delay of naming of Commission members, the Judicial Council’s review of the Western Jurisdiction’s election of Karen Oliveto, dismissal of a complaint in Iowa, and also what role Africa will play in the future of our denomination. There are many mysteries yet to unfold. I hope to be open, cautious, and grace filled as time reveals the way or ways forward.

Jeremy, I’m doing 3 posts on the WCA. The second one has the original statement on the Bible. Revliv1.blogspot.com. It is remarkable that such a simplistic statement would have been made by a group with such a high view of scripture.

Interesting that you know so much about the WCA and the intent. I am attending with both an open heart and an open mind. Yet, it seems to me that any group of people can get together, organize, promote and support as long as it isn’t the orthodox view. Perhaps that was not your intention–since I do not know what your intention was in writing this piece. I admit that I struggle with accepting the progressive views, views that have neither scientific nor biblical support.

That is ridiculous that progressive views have no Biblical support. Being progressive means being on the side of the poor and oppressed. There are numerous passages which support this agenda. The Magnificat by Mary in Luke is one such example. Conservatives support the powerful and the rich- which is hardly a Biblical agenda.

All due respect, but your logic is flawed demigaugary. Being progressive doesn’t automatically make you a friend of the poor any more than being conservative makes you a friend of the rich. This is part of why we have become so polarized that we might as well be on different banks of an acid river. This is why the church will likely split. Both sides claim the moral high ground but are blinded by hatred.

I think I was responding to someone who claimed that one could not be a Christian and be progressive at the same time. For instance, conservatives in our denomination oppose an oppressed minority group the LGBT and say that oppressing this group of people is in line with Christianity. It seems that Christianity (as well as Judaism) IS on the side of the more marginalized, the underdog, the less powerful. Conservative Christians don’t believe in being on the side of the oppressed. Republicans DEFINITELY favor the rich over the poor and WHO are one of their most important voting blocks?- the Evangelicals. Republicans also tend to be more racist and xenophobic as well as homophobic than Democrats are, but most Evangelicals claim Republicans really are more Christian. This isn’t demagoguery- you must know that Republicans have run campaigns on fear of black people. Of course, the Evangelical Left is a glorious exception, and has a far better political agenda. This isn’t demagoguery, it is the truth and it IS true that right wing religious people tend to be more prejudiced that more liberally religious people. I remember when I was in High School 30 years agoI read this book by a Glock and Stark about anti- Semitism. It drew a high correlation between religious orthodoxy and Anti-Semitism. More religiously conservative persons tended more to blame the Jews for killing Jesus than more religiously liberal persons. Many conservative Christians, although they support Israel, think that Jews will go to hell if they don’t accept Jesus. This contradicts what Paul stated in Romans 11 that God has NOT rejected his people, despite NOT accepting Jesus. I really cannot stand the common Evangelical view that anyone who doesn’t accept their religion is going to hell- how is this view NOT hateful? I do get letters in the mail from the United Methodist Mission society run by the conservatives and they talk about converting persons FROM Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam etc. I believe in respecting other religions. You certainly CANNOT claim that this Mission society shows this value that I hold dear to my heart of showing respect for other great religions. I am not blinded by hatred, but the more authoritarian and conservative a person is in their religion, the more hateful they tend to be. There is a LOT of research which backs this up.

Again, you paint with a broad brush. Each stroke is tainted with your own biases. I simply refuse the concept of collective pronouns when they are used to describe what groups of people “think” or “believe”. It is an erroneous approach used to classify “us” and “them”. Again, I simply state that not every conservative person is as you describe. They are not all xenophobic, homophobic lovers of big business and money. That is a simple fact that can be proven by meeting and talking to actual people.

I too am familiar with the Glock and Stark work “Christian Beliefs and Anti Semitism”. It is an interesting item to recall as it was written in 1966 in a far different time and it was routinely seen as a flawed work because of the authors bias. It seems amazing to me that it should be used to typify evangelicals. I believe Republicans might be lumped in by some as well. It would be roughly analogous to me saying J.B. Stoner represented Democrats today. I would never suggest such a thing.

The point I am trying to make is that there are people on both sides of the issues in the UMC who are only interested in winning the argument at any cost. To do that they will live in the land of half truths and out right lies. They will say things to support their argument that are specific blocks to conversation rather than genuine debate. All of this is why the church is likely to split. I have grown tired of the false debates and cries of “connection” by all of those who only want their way.

We have a great theological divide. We read and interpret the Bible differently. That doesn’t make one side Simon Legree and the other Karl Marx. We disagree and may not be able to coexist in the same group. We use the names (collective pronouns) so that we don’t have to face each other as individuals. All of these defense mechanisms are so we don’t have to mourn the loss when we do separate. It’s easier to avoid tears and pain when we’re fueled by hatred.

I don’t think I ever said “everyone” believes a certain thing. I merely stated they “tend” to say certain things. I also did say that there are more liberal Evangelicals who DO accept gays. The “Good News” movement does NOT accept homosexuality. That doesn’t mean that ALL Evangelicals don’t accept gays. Actually, reading “Is the Homosexual My Neighbor” by Evangelicals Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott helped me to accept my homosexuality. There IS a significant minority of Evangelicals who do accept gays and do affirm a more progressive political agenda. However, the main Evangelical movement in the United Methodist Church does not accept homosexuality. It is NOT, however as bad as the “Christian Reconstructionist” movement which advocates death for gays.

Here is something about right wing authoritarianism. This quality has been highly correlated with prejudice.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
It states this about it,
“Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don’t adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.[1]”

You can see this quality in the conservative movement in the United Methodist Church in that many of them would say a person is not Christian if they don’t ascribe to all of the creeds and dogmas of the historic Church. They value religious uniformity and would advocate punishment of anyone who did not strictly hew to the creeds and dogmas of the Church. Even one commenter on this blog stated that one could not be Christian if they did not believe in Original Sin. One reason I don’t believe in Original Sin is that I don’t believe in collective guilt. I don’t think people should be punished for what a distant ancestor did, such as Adam. Deuteronomy 24:16 states, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; only for his own guilt shall a man be put to death.” Ezekiel 18 also elaborately rejects collective guilt. This is also related to the Jews killing Jesus. Even if it were the case that the Jews of that day killed Jesus, it wouldn’t be fair to hold Jewish persons living today for that. Likewise, we should not be punished today for what Adam did.

“That’s why “A Third Way” failed. That’s why talk of re-writing the Book of Discipline and removing restrictive language about the church’s teaching on sexuality is foolish. And that’s why claiming that churches in more liberal contexts should have a different position than those in more traditional parts of the world is unthinkable. We don’t determine faithfulness based on the sentiments of a fallen culture but on the clear teaching of God’s word.”

This takes an authoritarian view of the Bible which would allow NO disagreement by progressives from the conservative dogma. One aspect of prejudice is the rejection of ambiguity or “a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.” Rejection of ambiguity also can mean that one believes in something so strongly that their view is NOT subject to debate. To me it seems clear that many Biblical texts CAN be understood in more than one way. At least the “Good News Movement” in the United Methodist Church rejects ANY ambiguity in the Bible about homosexuality. They are very sure they are right, even though one can find many Biblical texts which contradict their point of view. For instance, it is generally tolerated throughout the Old Testament to have sex outside of marriage as long as a woman is not betrothed to another man and a man doesn’t have sex with a woman who is betrothed or married to another man. “Good News” claims the Bible is clear in EVERY passage that all sex is proscribed outside of a one man, one woman marriage, and on that basis they advocate punishing LGBT persons in the Church.

Just one post script. My take is that “Good News” would value uniformity within the Church. They wouldn’t push SO much for uniformity within the larger society. “Christian Reconstructionists” would advocate uniformity for the whole society as well as a theocracy. “Good News” as well as IRD are NOT that extreme. They also wouldn’t be nearly SO punishing of gays as Christian Reconstructionists would be. So, I do see some shade of differences within the conservative movements.

Re: objections is raised to supposed problems with the WCA. Understandable given the left-wing position of the writer. Convincing? Nope. But some will find it entertaining. There is always interest in well written fiction. And it pays well lots of people will read it. Win/win for writer and reader. The only losers are those who mistake that well written fiction for the truth.

I have questions that no one seems interested in honestly responding to.
Why aren’t those who want a church that includes the LGBTQ+ community going to those churches that already do that?? Why are they insisting on forcing the Methodist church to change?? If the current UMC is incorrect in it’s views, it will eventually fade away into nothingness, and the pro-LGBTQ+ churches will thrive, right?